It seems that PC-BSD has set a trend. "DesktopBSD aims at being a stable and powerful operating system for desktop users. DesktopBSD combines the stability of FreeBSD, the usability and functionality of KDE and the simplicity of specially developed software to provide a system that's easy to use and install." How this new BSD distribution stacks up against PC-BSD remains to be seen.

It seems that BSDs are following linux with this. I do not so many BSD distros are beneficial to the BSD community. It would be better if they commit back to the original source tree. there are many requests from FreeBSD devs to improve the OS as a more Desktop friendly OS.
so why not just work together instead of forking like this?

If yo look in to their site it says that all the tools they developed for DesktopBSD are compatible and therefore can be used in FreeBSD. So is no fork is just a snapshot of freebsd with their added tools.

The fact is, they aren't new 'distros', they're merely existing distributions with user friendly configuration tools and a default desktop - the 'core' of the system is still maintainted and controlled by the original developers.

The best way to describe it would be a distribution which bases its core around Fedora; it will be in every way compatible with fedora, but the distribution will offer extras ontop of the basic core.

DesktopBSD and PC-BSD have one distinct difference... DesktopBSD just uses a GUI Ports frontend for package management where as PC-BSD uses its own package system PBI.

I personally have been aware of this project for a good couple months now, but its good to see it finally come into a reality.

I personally hope it keeps compatibility with FreeBSD and doesnt diverge from FreeBSD, as many new BSD variants take either:

1) Take along time to gain any userbase

Or

2) Die after a few months of existance due to no interest.

More Pre-configured BSD distro's is great in my opinion i always found setting up BSD a chore (yes I would describe my self as becoming lazy... Linux distro's have spoilt me with DE's etc being ready after initial install).

If I recall correctly this was discussed on a forum I once visited, and many BSD developers are primarily concerned with Server or Power user installs, and have no time / man-power in order to undertake making BSD's easier for the average newb, so for me these distro's are a great idea.

I will happily sit there infront of a command-line for hours on end, compiling and configuring my OS, I do this with Gentoo, and on occasion FreeBSD, but if I am honest I'm as lazy as the next guy and it's great to have solutions available where everything is pre-configured and working, and requires minimal tweaking and configuration to work.

Maybe after Gnome 2.12 is released. Who knows.
At least we know 2 people that want a gnome based bsd.
Some one else a little more tech savvy then myself probably wants it as well.. So I'll keep waiting.

I like the idea of *not* needing an extra application (dpkg, apt, synaptic*) to install applications. I'm a BeOS/Mac guy; I'm used to drag/drop to (un)install applications.

If the community focused on modernizing GNUstep, you would have that. Sadly, there are very few GNUstep applications, until that changes, i dont see how the KDE/GNOME empire could change... i personally like GNUstep a lot, but i hate not having a good browser, msn, image editors and such.

By the way, before someone starts bashing me that o should code it myself then (as people always do), im a graphic designer. I use the tools, i dont develop them.

It's trivial to implement something like AppFolders right now on Linux, but it isn't done on a widespread basis as it is a manifestly inferior means of distributing software, that is as far as software for which the source is available without licensing difficulties, when compared to the centralized repository method. Proprietary software though can be packaged into a relocatable directory which provides most of it's dependencies.

I like the idea of *not* needing an extra application (dpkg, apt, synaptic*) to install applications. I'm a BeOS/Mac guy; I'm used to drag/drop to (un)install applications.

Well, there is such systems already available to Linux like the excellent Autopackage - which seems to please you, according to previous postings of yours on related articles - and Klik, currently available to some recent releases of Knoppix, any Kanotix release and Linspire (after some tweaks, AFAIK), which is even better/easier than Autopackage IMHO. I believe that GoboLinux, besides its arguably innovative file system layout, is doing some experiences with the later what would please possible MacOS X converts.

The problem is that they aren´t gaining much traction in the Linux community because, quite frankly, only a small vocal minority is pushing them (even it is indeed a good idea to have them as an alternative). Seasoned Linux users don´t have too much problems with the current package managers. Actually, we prefer them to the Windows way of managing and (un)installing applications.

Personally, I have nothing against streamlining the install/uninstall process. Quite the opposite. I have played a little bit with Autopackage and I´m completely hooked to it - specially after they developed the KDE/QT front-end - but I would like to see it informing the distro package manager that a new program was installed so that the package manager could manage it later as it sees fit (upgrade it, remove it, query it, etc.) before adopting it completely. I believe that Mike Hearn(?) already stated that this is one of the goals that they´re pursuing for the next major releases. Once they accomplish that, I´ll be a happy camper.

My experience with GoboLinux was bad...They seem to assume that everything will retrofit in GNU Automake.
Besides, they use the Z shell (which is a better shell, but who cares about shells except for very basic stuff nowadays, since we have Perl?)

And, worse of all, they had absolutely no security police, which meant reinstalling anything that went bump in the night. And for Linux, that means a lot of stuff...

GNOME has a huge dependancy tree opposed to KDE, which is why I think the Desktop BSD's namely; PC-BSD NetBSD-Office and DesktopBSD chose KDE, its not impossible to create a GNOME BSD distro, it would just be more time consuming IMO.

Something occured to me, DesktopBSD and PC-BSD are both FreeBSD based; so there is nothing stopping you putting either the DesktopBSD mod's into PC-BSD or Installing PC-BSD Userland tools onto DesktopBSD and having PBI's available on DesktopBSD.

People seem to be really impressed by the PBI package system. While I do agree its the step in the right direction. I think there are quite a few problems with this approach. PC-BSD devs should to combine the best of both UNIX and Windows package management.

First of all, it would be nice if a pbi file would have metadata about updates and where to find them (like some firefox extensions). Thus in the package manager would allow you to silently update all your PBI without having to redownload a pbi with a new version of the application (windows style).

Secondly, I think pbi files should also have metdata on lib uses (along with supported version ranges). This should reduce memory requirements as you won't have duplicate libs loaded in memory. This would also reduce security issues while retaining stability (if an app needs an old version of a lib, one copy is kept which only that specific app can access).

Thirdly, it would be nice if pbis could installed in a "Programs" folder in the root directory. Additional metadata could be added to allow the application to install in the correct sub-directory. For instance, a media player would install in Programs/Multimedia.

Of course, this is all aimed at power windows users who would want to move to UNIX, but would like to retain the some aspects of windows.

Someone want to elaborate on the clean and manageable wireless configuration option for this KDE that is not in the KDE for Linux?

The single most annoying hindrance for Linux is that Wireless configuration is not a plug n' play as you go situation.

Between the Cardbus bios bypassing to resolve irq hangups to wpasupplicant to ifplugd to iwconfig/iwlist, etc., it rapidly makes it clear that until a simple 100% hotplug/ifplugd* aware for all 54g cards, combined with a point and click configuration app actually works without having to duct tape it together Linux will not be a desktop/laptop alternative.

If more laptops are being sold today than desktops would it not stand to reason that Wireless configuration options were rock solid and their accompanying client apps well suited for the distro of one's choosing?

*I'm speaking of chipsets currently available in source that either compile as a kernel module or are now part of the kernel tree. This moving target will always be moving as the kernel adds more cards it supports, but the ones supported should just work.

That's something I absolutely cannot stand on Linux: the lack of standardisation on wireless configuration tools. It seems each wireless driver includes its own 802.11 network stack, its own configuration program, and its own quirks.

On FreeBSD, there is a single 802.11 network stack that all the wireless drivers use (or soon will use). There's a single configuration program (ifconfig, same one that's used for wired connections). If you need WPA support, then you just enable wpa_supplicant via /etc/rc.conf and configure it via /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf (you can even the supplicant for WEP connections).

Everything is standardised, everything works together. And you have 1 set of configuration tools for 802.11b, 802.11g, and 802.11a.

What really floors me is that the Atheros drivers are developed on Linux ... yet they work so much better on FreeBSD.

* Note that I'm not saying that apt or the likes suck, they're very good in what they do. In fact, on Linux I prefer apt.

Although i prefer emerge i agree with you that apt is a good package manager.However a GUI package manager can pose a threat to newcomers.They could easily get into a package frency and thus the risk of irreversible dependencies.

i have installed pcbsd 7.5. It found my mouse, video and sound drivers at install time where "bare" freebsd never could on a "straightforward" install.

I have updated kde to 3.4.1 and nothing broke. am currently updating to 3.4.2. I am sure all will be fine.
FreeBSD rocks and as for as i can see, "for me", pcbsd is usefull as a time saver at install and post install time. any other time, it looks like good old freebsd.

to my question: i ran rkhunter and it found openssl with good version number but i could not see openssl in /var/db/pkg. "locate" found openssl though. I noticed the ports had a slightly higher version so i installed it thinking that it would overwrite/upgrade the mystery openssl. (previously "portupgrade -vRr" did not work!!!????). After the above "make install clean" i ran rkhunter and found that the two version of openssl where installed, the original in /usr/lib and the new one in /usr/local/lib, though i am not positive about these 2 locations as i am away from home.

pkg_delete would not remove the original openssl and it was not listed in pcbsd "remove programs app". so i manually removed them myself and then had kde control center find the new libraries.

just wondering what that was all about because rkhunter found 2 other items that do not show up in /var/db/pkg thus missing upgrading by "portupgrade"

OpenSSL is part of the base distribution, and thus the included copy is not handled through ports. FreeBSD separates packages from the base distribution with user-install packages between /usr/* and /usr/local/*. This applies to many packages other than FreeBSD. You can edit /etc/make.conf to exclude them if you want to compile a system without them.

The meta-package handles all the dependencies and everything you need to run a standard installation of gnome. There are other meta-packages as well, if you like your gnome install a certain way.

You can also select Gnome during setup, but I personally prefer NOT to do that as I think an install should get the operating system up and running as quickly as possible.

As for a lack of "integration", the only thing lacking I can really see are menu items. An app that scans pkg_info, and adds launchers accordingly would be trivial to develop.

Other than that, a quick and dirty front end to packages/ports command line tools would be all the "desktop" you'd need for point and clicking.

To be honest, I'm glad BSD isn't "ready for the Desktop", if currently "desktop friendly" Linux distros are the inspiration. The more "desktop friendly" a distro is, the more stupidity it seems needs to be fixed to have a useful system. I'm not opposed to convenience, but it should not be at the cost of control.

The difference is that you're talking about a stock Gnome. The reason Ubuntu is so popular is because they go that extra effort to make it a gnome distro....same with Foresight Linux which i'm trying right now.

You really expect people to be able to do that? I mean actually pressing 45 keys on the keyboard in order to do something? Without using the mouse to click on some icons? Have you any idea of how *hard* that is, how steep the learning curve is?

Not that I have anything against projects like DesktopBSD, I'm sure that they are useful to some people.

It's just that I'm getting tired of constantly hearing that FreeBSD is not suitable as a desktop, that it needs a fancy gui installer and that "desktop" seems to be getting more and more synonymous with Gnome or KDE.

The third project to use KDE instead of another WM. Why is this? Anyone?

I find this really odd, as KDE and BSD don't seem like the ideal marriage, considering the license issues. Gnome under LGPL is a much more 'fit' choice than KDE under GPL in my opinion. At least, it makes more sense that the BSD guys would prefer LGPL.

And KDE seems an odd choice for another reason: with BSD I think of either 20 year old machines still running reliably, or server machines with the least encumbrance possible. When I think of KDE I think of encumbrance.
Why not XFce or Fluxbox like the FreeSBIE project? A lean simple environment seems much more apropiate. Especially considering KDE is Windows-like.

instead of asking "Why KDE" perhaps you should be asking, "why does my world view not match up with the reality of things that i am observing all around me?"

perhaps KDE really is more usable for the average user and doesn't introduce any licensing encumbrances that are of concern to anyone concerned with real world situations. that would explain things nicely, wouldn't it?

i'd also add that it could well be that the design of KDE resonates with the BSD people. perhaps the portability of KDE and the number of active KDE developers who use and develop on BSD has also had an impact on that community.

or maybe it's just all serendipity. at the end of the day the most important thing here is that more and more people are getting behind the open source desktop and putting their time and effort into promoting it.

Tried it on the same Compaq Deskpro EN where PC-BSD would not install onto. DesktopBSD does not install either. My screen blanks and that's it. It's pretty much at the same point as PC-BSD. I might want to try this with the real FreeBSD stuff. That's for later tonight.

Then I installed it on an Asus portable. It goes ok during install, although it asks not that much questions (like keyboard, ...) When it reboots, by GRUB is gone and replaced by something of DesktopBSD where F1 and F2 are marked with "???" whereas those are my Windows partition and my Linux swap. F3 shows "Linux" which is correct (SuSE there) and F4 is for FreeBSD (should be DesktopBSD). When I boot into that, it holds on something with a prompt "mountroot>" that it does not find. Starting with option 2 "ACPI disabled" actually just reboots the portable.

Either I'm a complet idiot or there's something wrong with both BSD's. I ran Slackware 10.1, SuSE Pro 9.3, Kubuntu and Windows on the same machine without a problem, so I might not be me ... (?)

Either I'm a complete idiot or there's something wrong with both BSDs.

Heh, I think there's a third alternative. ;-)

What you saw with the F1, F2, "???," etc., is FreeBSD's current/old bootloader, which naturally replaced GRUB as that is what you selected during the installation. You didn't read the excellent FreeBSD documentation, which tells you what is going on during the installation - it gives you information so you can decide what option you want to select for the bootloader, for example. See <URL: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/install-s....

Another alternative is to install FreeBSD using the BSDInstaller. BSDInstaller is a very nice simple installer originally developed for DragonFlyBSD. Porting it to FreeBSD is one of the projects from Google's Summer of Code. There's an iso of FreeBSD with the BSDInstaller available at <URL: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/SOC2005/bsdinstaller/>.

Either I'm a complet idiot or there's something wrong with both BSD's. I ran Slackware 10.1, SuSE Pro 9.3, Kubuntu and Windows on the same machine without a problem, so I might not be me ... (?)
You're a complete idiot who can't read. During the install, it asks if you want to install the bootloader, and where it should put it. You chose the "install to Master Boot Record" option, which overwrites anything already in the MBR ... which is GRUB in your case.

Since you already have GRUB installed, you don't need a boot manager, and should have read the notice that popped up and select "None ... don't touch the MBR". After that, you're GRUB menu would still be there, and would just require a little editing to add a FreeBSD entry.

Don't blame the tools if you aren't willing to take 30 seconds to read the warnings.

They are not what you call newbie friendly.Personally i prefer fluxbox with fluxbox-styles-fluxmod etc.Working with KDE is more intuitiv and i think that's one of the desktop/PC-BSD goals,to provide a intuiv environment.

There are no BSD file system layout standards! FreeBSD's layout for example is different from NetBSD's...

What we need is additional package management for /home/user!! And I don't mean ports, pkgsrc or pbi, because they are system-wide and have to be managed by root.

I don't see what's so cool about PC-BSDs package management? "Konvalo" and "Zero Install" were there before and they work for Linux and the BSDs now! The only thing missing is more support from users and packagers.

I don't see what's so cool about PC-BSDs package management? "Konvalo" and "Zero Install" were there before and they work for Linux and the BSDs now!

So I went to take look and Konvalo and Zero Install.

You are just spreading disinformation.

They have very little to do with PBI:

1) First let me say that it's hard to discover what konvalo does, since the documentation is soo bad.

2) They both assume a custom repository, and that people will just think that their solution is great, to the point of, say, stop using ports to start using Konvalo. Maybe an easy sell for Debian. Not for a ports user (14000 in FreeBSD)

3) All use the command line. PBI aims, in the end, at point and click.

4) Here's what Zero Install says: "The Zero Install system makes software installation not merely easy, but unnecessary. Users run their applications directly from the Internet from the software author's pages."

As you can see, you obviously don't know any of the tools you mention. Thank you for making me waste my time and reafirming my faith in PBI.

1) Agreed, Konvalo's documentation could be better. But I'm sure it's just a matter of user feedback and contacting the developer.

2) Of course, they cannot substitute build systems like pkgsrc or ports. And they cannot compete with the thousands of ready-to-use packages, built from ports.

3) So the coolest feature of PBI is the KDE-only GUI??
Yesterday, I ran gmplayer from Konvalo. That was "/coda/konvalo.org/start gmplayer" from the command line and waiting some time until the program fires up. This would be in contrast 9 (!!) clicks with PBI from Downloading to Finishing Installation. Not to forget the additional typing of the root password. Compared to this click-mania even the standard procedure via "sudo pkg_add -r gmplayer" + "gmplayer" is less cumbersome.

A now imagine what a Konvalo GUI could look like: Go to a webpage (Toolkit independent!), choose the application and ready!!

Okay, PBI automates the addition of menu entries and that's a nice feature.

4) Zero Install and Konvalo do software installation via downloading and caching. No root passwords for installation, every user can "install" or run the already cached programs. Cached programs will work offline, without network connection. Zero Install tools offer GUIs, can create Icons, etc.

I'm using Gimp, gmplayer, mplayer and gv from Konvalo and a few ROX-apps via the "Zero Install Injector", OS is NetBSD 2.02

What are you talking about? NVidia has been pretty decent at keeping the FreeBSD version of their driver up-to-date. Sure, the Linux driver typically is released before the FreeBSD driver but it does get released within a reasonable amount of time.

Now that there is also a Solaris driver, perhaps they'll be able to keep more up-to-date because there's more Unix know-how being put into it.

It would be pretty neat if they would just release some DragonFlyBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD drivers as well. The more the merrier.

As you can see by comparing the two archive lists, the release dates are pretty much the same for that last few driver releases. It's also evident that in the begining (when the FreeBSD driver was young) the FreeBSD releases weren't in sync with the Linux releases (some releases were even skipped), but NVidia was new to FreeBSD so I'm sure they had to figure out the differences.

I will admit, they do cater to Linux but since their Unix driver support is growing that may change. Again, I really wish they added support for DragonFlyBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.

I will also admit, that they should redo the documentation now that they have a Solaris port so that the documentation could be more generic and just point out the differences between OS's when needed. Now, if you read the FreeBSD documentation for the diver it usually points you to the Linux documentation for more info. That just doesn't seem right to me.

I don't think that it has much to do with the technical differences, but rather the financial incentive. While NVIDIA has a clear financial incentive for Solaris and Linux, I'm not certain that they have one for FreeBSD. While the March and June difference is much more tolerable, the releases over the years were several months apart.

The documentation really doesn't concern me much because installing and configuring the driver is rather easy. Instead of worrying about OpenBSD or Dragonfly, I would rather see regular updates and support for x86-64, among other things.

Not only that.. but whats wrong with Choice. I love linux as much as the next guy.. But if they did the gnome based PC-BSD or somesuch it would give me an option if somethign happens with linux.. There is no real preference except it would be neat to see a tightly integrated BSD desktop OS, much like they did with Ubuntu.
Anyway it nice to know others would like a gnome based bsd desktop OS.. Maybe I should get a little more savvy and do it myself. I dont know where to start though.

You're really a Linux fanboy who's never used BSD. Right?
You think BSDs are like the same mess the Linux distros are. That's why you you ask a question with your premises.
Try it out, dude. Get over Linux.

Sincerely it seems to me that many GUI oriented tools are created to install it easily but it seems to me that Freebsd guys have not spent their time to develop one simple command such as: ``bsdupdater upgrade"

The two links I posted are too complicated, imho.
Also the latter is talking about how to keep the os/kernel up-to-date but as you can see that's a personal initative of a guy.
Even if a package exists I think that the patches are build by him and not by the freebsd team. http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-update/

Last but not least.
Because due to Java issues, how can you promote a Desktop system if you cannot distribuite java package binaries ?!?

Sincerely it seems to me that many GUI oriented tools are created to install it easily but it seems to me that Freebsd guys have not spent their time to develop one simple command such as: ``bsdupdater upgrade"

When I got Ubuntu to redo sources.list under linux after pc-bsd made that drive inert on that box: I was only able to recover 6 of 12 *nix distrition install partitions to booting and will install over the others; so I won't try this until I know I won't go through this again, despite the fact that only my travelling desktop got hosed because re-installing the w98se = major pain.
-- same ananymous coward

Will someone please release "Enlightened BSD" (e17 + gtk/qt/whatever)? But more to the point:

I am coming from a Windows (user) background a couple years ago, but I was sick to death of MS behavior (the software and the company). It's enough to throw anyone that understands the implications into a fit, aside from the unstellar aspects of the user experience...

Honestly, when I started toying with linux and bsd's I was afraid of the command line, but I liked what I had read about the *nix "way". The me-too desktops (KDE/GNOME; no offense to the developers) were less fully featured and kind of buggy compared to Windows, and before long I found myself doing things at the terminal. Less daunting tasks at first.

One of the things that I absolutely HATED about MS software is how it assumes it knows what you want (even if you adjust the hell out of preferences), and as often as not its WRONG. One of the things that appealed to me about the *nix world is that it doesn't make an ass-out-of-u-and-me.

So there's your tradeoff. If you know what you want to do, you want command of the computer, and you won't be happy with patronizing coddling by the desktop environment. But without that handholding, you MUST know what you're doing in order to do it.

For me, KDE/GNOME both turned out to be a no-win. To be happy, I needed to be in control. To be in control I needed to learn how the OS works. Once I understood what I was doing, and how to do it, all those GUI "utilities" just got in the way.

Now I prefer a simple window manager that is fast and clean, stays out of my way and presents the my simple tool set (filemanager, editor, terminal, browser, im, mail, spreadsheet, dvd/audio player) in a minimal, graceful, beautiful way.

My point is that while maybe there is a GREAT deal of value in bringing the desktop environment to *nixland, perhaps there is even MORE value in helping users get comfortable as *nix users.

Like:

1) Making it easier to learn your way around the shell. (not that its hard, but it is cryptic and therefore can seem harder than it is to noobs)

2) Less attitude from people that already know and think that if you don't you're a mental vegetable

3) keeping directory structures very consistent (I LOVE BSD FOR THIS REASON), and name them less crypticly (tab at the shell and you dont have to type the whole name, so don't tell me its too much to type). Granted, this is something that would have to be done very gradually and probably moot by the time anyone learns their way around.

4) encourage developers to use cross-platform libs so that the killer apps from one platform look identical on the other (kind of beside my point but still...); if my apps all WORK the same and are laid out the same will i notice half the time its not (pick your desktop)?

That would be pretty awesome! I saw Raster demo'ing his evas technology at a Linux Expo in SoCal a few years back and it was simply awesome! Back then, one of the things I was looking forward to was the "desktop shell" and the file management being built into Enlightenment. I guess that's because I'm using to seeing my files and folders graphically.

Alot has been done (changes, rewrites, etc.) to Enlightenment .17 and it's components since then. I hope everything for the better. I check their website from time to time to see what's up with the project.

I have noticed that there's an enlightenment-devel port in the ports tree. I have been tempted to give the development snapshot a try. I guess we'll see how it goes when it's done.

Definitely check e17 out from cvs. I'm using it as my full time wm and in spite of a little work it takes to get running/themed/new background etc, its the coolest wm ever. The only thing IMHO that comes close or is more polished is e16. Go Raster!

I asked for BSD Desktop friendly a long time ago. When I first brought it up. I was met with hard words from BSD hardcore code hackers who wanted nothing to do with easy to setup graphical BSD system. Guess I am getting what I asked for.

Contrary to PC-BSD, there are no new ideas here. PC-BSD is attempting a new packaging scheme that does not interfere with the FreeBSD core or ports.
DesktopBSD is just a vanilla FreeBSD. I see no point.

Well, to the poster that suggested this, your assumption is completely off base. The fact that both DesktopBSD and PC-BSD both use KDE, beyond just being an absurdly small sample space of 2, is no basis to draw any conclusion whatsoever, as many BSD users don't use any graphical interface at all. The only thing you might possibly even hypothesize is, a small fraction of the BSD community who believes BSD needs to have an integrated desktop, and point and click installation prefer KDE to Gnome.

I guess I'm just one of those people who feel that anyone who isn't capable of learning how to use ports is too technically inept to spend any time on whatsoever. No, it's not because I'm arrogant and feel that BSD users should be for the elite, but that BSD as it is is already so mindnumbingly easy. It doesn't get any easier or logical than to install packages built from source the exact same way you compile source. Worse comes to worst, you just browse a file directory and type the "magic" command sequence. After all, aren't so-called "users" just looking for the magical all-in-one solution that automagically handles all possible situations?

When I installed SuSE as the second OS, I installed GRUB and it added my Windows stuff correctly. Off course, I installed it in the MBR.

When I now added the third OS, I also allowed it to write its bootloader in my MBR. Just like any decent install program under Linux can do.

Unfortunately, the boatloader sucks. Not only does it depict a swap partition, it does not allow me to boot my Linux partition anymore. And it did not say that on my screen "After rebooting you will not be able to boot your Linux partition, are you sure ?"

That is not because I did not read what the screen says, but because I trusted the program to do something decent with the boatloader.

I tend to read what's on the screen, but I also know when something sucks ...

@jutmark: I did not have many options during the install of the thing. I did not install FreeBSD but the DesktopBSD. So no, I did not read that part of the FreeBSD manual before installing another product, just as I did not read the Microsoft manuals on TCP/IP before configuring my network on Linux ;-))

"DesktopBSD development started about one year before PC-BSD suddenly appeared, therefore DesktopBSD is definitively no copy and not about rivalry against PC-BSD. It's quite possible that PC-BSD and DesktopBSD can profit from each other in the future."